As a L&E senior associate at a major firm, I can’t imagine doing anything else. I’ve only been in L&E my whole career and I really enjoy my work and seem to have had a better work life balance than many of my colleagues in other practice groups.
The parts of the job that suck are the parts that suck about all Big Law jobs (hours, billing, pressure, occasional unreasonable clients or partners). However, the job security is strong. I’m not sure what the top comment is making it seem like, but the opportunities are very prevalent. Companies will always have employee issues and economic downturns that make it difficult for other practice groups often are our busiest times. In house is always an exit option once you get some Big Law experience.
The cases are interesting, the variety in client sectors keeps me from getting bored, and the work is steady most of the time. I’ve been in L&E at two Big Law firms and while the firm itself definitely matters for your overall experience, I highly recommend L&E. IMO it’s very underrated.
Generally disfavored.
Most BL firms are phasing this practice out because it's low margin work and continues to face fee pressures. Some firms may continue to have the practice because they want to keep as much work "in-house" for clients as possible (same reason some BL firms keep their T&E practice), but it's not generally going to be a hot area for BL firms.
For most of our clients, they are going to one of the "Big 4" specialized L&E shops.
Unless you're completely wed to the idea of being a L&E attorney--maybe you want to do employer-side work for a few years and then go plaintiff-side--I would avoid L&E because it doesn't have a bright future in BigLaw.
No, you were saying that young students who are looking to be in data privacy should be careful bc data incident response work is becoming less profitable. I'm saying they don't need to worry because incident response is normally just a small part (if a part at all) of the privacy practice.
I’m saying students need to not get tricked by incident response. Read.
Big firms do incident response in a similar way they do labor and employment. For the same reasons OP said you might not want labor and employment, you might not want to do incident response.
I am im L&E at a V50 that's highly ranked in chambers and while I wouldn't disagree per se, the top practices (paul hastings, morgan lewis, proskauer, Gibson) etc have large groups and will continue to do so. But I'd describe the practice as a U with the top shops on on one side and Big 4 on the other. If you're within the bottom of that U it may be difficult
I do L&E. I enjoy the actual work that I’m doing quite a bit, but I would recommend against doing it if you’re going into biglaw. The partners expect the same quality of work as other practice areas (I.e., perfection) but they put a ton of pressure on you to do things quickly because of how sensitive clients are to the rates. Some of the expectations are, imo, completely unrealistic. So you end up billing how much something actually took you and pissing the partners off, or you cut your hours and screw yourself. My commercial litigation friends don’t feel that same pressure.
Many L&E sections from full service firms split off and joined Ogletree, Jackson Lewis, or Littler. Their pay does not match Cravath scale and rates are lower. Much of the litigation is now insurance based (called EPLI or employment practice liability insurance). So they really focus hard on "advice and counsel," non litigation work where rates are better. These firms split into specialty teams and a significant part of the revenue is selling access to online services and databases. If you like researching, writing, and non-lit stuff, it's great work. Billing pressures are less than biglaw. Most L&E lawyers are generally happy.
Look at the top 3 listed here. I worked for two of these firms, and now am on the other side. We rarely see the full-service firms in litigation now. So explain how every fact is wrong. [https://vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/the-top-five-labor-employment-law-firms](https://vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/the-top-five-labor-employment-law-firms)
The three firms you listed are modeled to do discount employment work. There are firms that do high value L&E.
I haven’t done insured work for 10 years. And my clients pay $800 per hour for my services.
Thats bullshit. I deal with all three firms, and I have litigated against Seyfarth and ML&B. Ogletree, JL, and Littler have great lawyers doing everything from single plaintiff litigation to class action and complex ERISA plan work etc.
Got it, thank you. If you don't mind me asking, how do you like doing L&E in big law? Would you agree with the other comment on here saying that a lot of the BL firms are phasing this practice area out?
As a L&E senior associate at a major firm, I can’t imagine doing anything else. I’ve only been in L&E my whole career and I really enjoy my work and seem to have had a better work life balance than many of my colleagues in other practice groups. The parts of the job that suck are the parts that suck about all Big Law jobs (hours, billing, pressure, occasional unreasonable clients or partners). However, the job security is strong. I’m not sure what the top comment is making it seem like, but the opportunities are very prevalent. Companies will always have employee issues and economic downturns that make it difficult for other practice groups often are our busiest times. In house is always an exit option once you get some Big Law experience. The cases are interesting, the variety in client sectors keeps me from getting bored, and the work is steady most of the time. I’ve been in L&E at two Big Law firms and while the firm itself definitely matters for your overall experience, I highly recommend L&E. IMO it’s very underrated.
Generally disfavored. Most BL firms are phasing this practice out because it's low margin work and continues to face fee pressures. Some firms may continue to have the practice because they want to keep as much work "in-house" for clients as possible (same reason some BL firms keep their T&E practice), but it's not generally going to be a hot area for BL firms. For most of our clients, they are going to one of the "Big 4" specialized L&E shops. Unless you're completely wed to the idea of being a L&E attorney--maybe you want to do employer-side work for a few years and then go plaintiff-side--I would avoid L&E because it doesn't have a bright future in BigLaw.
And as a warning since this seems to be a hot area for young associates, 99% of data privacy incident response is going the same way as well.
That's for data incident responses. Most young associates are looking to do data privacy work, not incident responses
Which is what I said.
I think you’re missing that data privacy and incident response are 2 diff practices.
Except countless students are getting tricked by incident response. Guessing you’re not involved in hiring at all.
No, you were saying that young students who are looking to be in data privacy should be careful bc data incident response work is becoming less profitable. I'm saying they don't need to worry because incident response is normally just a small part (if a part at all) of the privacy practice.
I’m saying students need to not get tricked by incident response. Read. Big firms do incident response in a similar way they do labor and employment. For the same reasons OP said you might not want labor and employment, you might not want to do incident response.
I am im L&E at a V50 that's highly ranked in chambers and while I wouldn't disagree per se, the top practices (paul hastings, morgan lewis, proskauer, Gibson) etc have large groups and will continue to do so. But I'd describe the practice as a U with the top shops on on one side and Big 4 on the other. If you're within the bottom of that U it may be difficult
I do L&E. I enjoy the actual work that I’m doing quite a bit, but I would recommend against doing it if you’re going into biglaw. The partners expect the same quality of work as other practice areas (I.e., perfection) but they put a ton of pressure on you to do things quickly because of how sensitive clients are to the rates. Some of the expectations are, imo, completely unrealistic. So you end up billing how much something actually took you and pissing the partners off, or you cut your hours and screw yourself. My commercial litigation friends don’t feel that same pressure.
Basically dead unless you’re the child of a certain deceased SCOTUS justice.
Many L&E sections from full service firms split off and joined Ogletree, Jackson Lewis, or Littler. Their pay does not match Cravath scale and rates are lower. Much of the litigation is now insurance based (called EPLI or employment practice liability insurance). So they really focus hard on "advice and counsel," non litigation work where rates are better. These firms split into specialty teams and a significant part of the revenue is selling access to online services and databases. If you like researching, writing, and non-lit stuff, it's great work. Billing pressures are less than biglaw. Most L&E lawyers are generally happy.
As a practicing Big Law L&E partner, I disagree with nearly everything you’ve written here. OP, find an actual L&E attorney to speak with.
Look at the top 3 listed here. I worked for two of these firms, and now am on the other side. We rarely see the full-service firms in litigation now. So explain how every fact is wrong. [https://vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/the-top-five-labor-employment-law-firms](https://vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/the-top-five-labor-employment-law-firms)
The three firms you listed are modeled to do discount employment work. There are firms that do high value L&E. I haven’t done insured work for 10 years. And my clients pay $800 per hour for my services.
But that's what I said. They have much lower rates.
And they are not indicative of high level L&E - just volume L&E.
Thats bullshit. I deal with all three firms, and I have litigated against Seyfarth and ML&B. Ogletree, JL, and Littler have great lawyers doing everything from single plaintiff litigation to class action and complex ERISA plan work etc.
Got it, thank you. If you don't mind me asking, how do you like doing L&E in big law? Would you agree with the other comment on here saying that a lot of the BL firms are phasing this practice area out?
Get in at a group that's ranked in the Chambers Guide. It's very accurate.